Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Verified Null-Move Pruning, ICGA 25(3)

Author: Alessandro Damiani

Date: 02:14:53 11/21/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 20, 2002 at 18:59:59, Uri Blass wrote:

>On November 20, 2002 at 17:51:40, Alessandro Damiani wrote:
>>>One final remark: You use standard R = 3 in DIEP. So the search tree constructed
>>>by your program will definitely be smaller than that of verified R = 3. Many
>>>people find standard R = 3 as too risky; but if you are happy with its overall
>>>tactical strength, then I don't recommend you to shift to another method. But
>>>for those who'd like to get greater tactical strength than standard R = 2, and a
>>>smaller search tree than R = 2, I recommend to try verified null-move pruning.
>>Vincent uses R = 3 and complex quiescence search (Vincent, correct me if I am
>>wrong). Maybe your Verified Null-Move gives about the same results like R = 3
>>with a complex quiescence search.
>>_If_ this is true then your approach is simpler and therefore better. Just my
>>two thoughts before going to bed. Good nights.......
>I do not believe that it gives the same results.

I wrote "about the same result" which is not equal to "the same result". And I
added "maybe". These words tells you that I am just guessing, nothing more,
nothing less.

>I do not know which algorithm is better but the
>algorithms are different.

Right, to know and to guess are two different things. I am in the guess-phase.

>I believe that a third algorithm may be better than both of them.

BTW I won't use it. My preferred algorithm is Alpha Beta Conspiracy Search
(ABC), and ABC already contains Verified Null-Move in a different way.

BTW Verified Null-Move looks like an improvement of Fail High Reductions by the
authors of Zugzwang.


This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.